Siege of Maastricht (1579)
This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. (January 2023) |
Siege of Maastricht | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Eighty Years' War | |||||||
Spanish troops storming the city of Maastricht. | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Dutch Rebels | Spain | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Melchior von Schwarzenberg†; Sebastien Tapin† | Alexander Farnese | ||||||
Strength | |||||||
1,200–2,000[1][2] | 20,000–34,000[1][2] | ||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||
900–1000 soldiers, plus 800-4,000 civilians[2] | 4,000[1] |
The siege of Maastricht was a battle of the Eighty Years' War which lasted from March 12 to July 1, 1579. The Spanish were victorious.
Prelude
Political background
The Siege of Maastricht was undertaken in a moment in which the Royal authority had almost collapsed in the Spanish Netherlands. A wave of Protestant, popular violence known as
The new governor, John of Austria, illegitimate half-brother to Philip, signed the so-called Perpetual Edict on 12 February 1577, ordering the Spanish troops to leave the Netherlands for Italy in exchange for the States General agreeing to recognize him as governor and to maintain the Catholic religion.[8] The Spanish abandoned the country on 20 March 1577, but the reconciliation proved fruitless, as the provinces of Holland and Zeeland were not willing to return to the Royal obedience without the toleration of the Protestant cult. Orange, as stadtholder of the two provinces, refused to accept John as governor and to participate in the States General summoned by the latter.[9] As Orange's influence was growing, John left Brussels for the safer Namur and recalled the Spanish troops. Aarschot, the most influential Southern noblemen, invited Archduke Matthias, future Holy Roman Emperor, to take John's position, which the States declared vacant. When he arrived on 30 October 1577, Orange, thanks to this popularity, had replaced Aarschot as the leading political figure, and Matthias had to content himself to be a figurehead.[10] On 31 January 1578, the Spanish army routed the States General's force at the Battle of Gembloux and took Leuven on 13 February 1578, forcing Orange and Matthias to abandon the now unsecure Brussels for Antwerp. New prospects opened for Philip II, as the largest silver convoy up to the point had reached Seville in August 1577.[11]
While the Spanish Army went on the offensive, growing religious tensions in Flanders and Brabant led to an increasing factionalism. Calvinists took power in Ghent, and the magistrates of Antwerp, Brussels and Mechelen, originating from the lower nobility and the landed aristocracy, were replaced by burghers.[12] The States troops occupied several reluctant towns in the northern provinces, including Amersfoort, and purged its magistracies.[13] In Holland, Calvinists seized power in Amsterdam and Haarlem, and in Zeeland, at Ter Goes. The Catholic majority in the States General blocked an edict of tolerance and, over the summer of 1578, the States of Hainaut, Artois and the Walloon Flanders declared that they would not accept the Protestant cult. In the same way, Holland and Zeeland refused to tolerate the Catholic cult.[14] The Southern Catholic nobility, organized in a faction known as the Malcontents, asked France for help and, on 13 August 1578, the States General procclaimed Francis of Anjou, brother to the King of France, as 'Defender of the liberties of the Low Countries'. In exchange, 12,000 French soldiers would support the States Army against the Spanish.[15] In turn, the Calvinists from Ghent appealed to John Casimir of the Palatinate-Simmern, a Calvinist too, who entered the Netherlands in autumn ahead a German mercenary army. Three factions were now fighting against other.[16]
Military campaigning
The Spanish army continued its offensive amidst the Netherlandish inner conflict and made rapid gains. With Leuven secured, John of Austria sent Alexander Farnese, his nephew and close friend, to besiege
The Spanish army faced an unexpected setback in August when John, whom Farnese had already re-joined with his troops,
In November 1578, as the Spanish army was being decimated by diseases, Farnese left the camp at Bouge garrisoned by just six companies and advanced along the right bank of the Meuse with the bulk of the army, then numbering 20,000 men, towards Limburg. He intended to relieve
On 10 January 1579 Farnese sent a messenger to the Maastricht, the Spanish Captain
Having taken Weert on 29 January, Farnese advanced with most of his forces to meet the States Army, then led by the
With the States Army neutralized and the rebels divided, Farnese held a war council at Turnhout and informed his commanders about his intention of besieging Maastricht, whose control he deemed key to prevent the arrival of reinforcements to the rebels from Germany, as well as to ensure that the Prince-bishop of Liège,
Siege
Preparations
With a population of about 15,000 to 17,500 people,[56] Maastricht was one of the largest cities in the Low Countries, yet its prosperity, based on its textile factories and breweries, had diminished in the ten years prior to the siege because the interruption of the trade due to the disturbances, and the military constraints over the population.[57][58] The garrison began to prepare for a siege already in November 1578, while the Spanish Army was encamped between Maastricht and Dalhem. All those whose loyalty was under suspicion were expelled from the city, vigilance was reinforced, gunpowder was acquired in Germany, cannons were cast in the city's foundries, and the peasants from the vicinity who sheltered in the city were armed with pikes and organized in companies, or put to work in the fortificacions.[59][60] On 10 January 1579, the governor of Maastricht, Melchior von Schwarzenberg, asked Archduke Matthias for money, and on 13 and 14 January, he requested reinforcements, both cavalry and infantry, although they failed to arrive.[61] According to Famiano Strada, the garrison numbered 1,200 soldiers, mostly French, Scottish and English, and about 6,000 armed burghers.[62] Captain Alonso Vázquez put the strength of the defenders at 4,000 'of the most experienced and veteran soldiers among those of the States of Flanders, and well disciplined'.[63]
While Schwarzenberg was the senior commander, the main responsible of the defense was sergeant major Sébastian Tapine, a
On the Spanish side, preparations began in March, when Farnese ordered
As cold persisted over March, the Spanish troops looked for lodgement in the villages nearby. The States troops set several of them on fire, but Figueroa drove them off and captured several of the arsonists.[67] Meanwhile, Cristóbal de Mondragón invested Maastricht from the German side of the Meuse in command of a large force of Walloon and German soldiers. To ease the communications between the two sections of the besieging force, two pontoon bridges were laid over the river, one north of the city, at Haren, and another south of it, at Heugem.[69][70] The Spanish tercio of Figueroa, as well as the German foot regiments of Hannibal Altemps and Karl von Mansfeld, encamped on the left bank of the Meuse, in front of the Hochterpoort; the Spanish tercio of Francisco de Valdés took positions before the Brussels gate, and that under Hernando de Toledo encamped before the Tongeren gate. The German infantry regiments of Frundsberg and Fugger, as well as the Walloon regiment of the Count of Roeulx, remained at Pietersheim.[70]
First assault
As the siege began during a market day, hundreds of peasants from the villages around Maastricht found themselves enclosed inside the city.
Farnese asked Maastricht's former governor, Francisco Montesdoca, and Maestre de Campo Hernando de Toledo, who had spent several years in garrison duties there, about the city's weak points, but they were unable to answer.[63] Farnese and his chief engineer, Gabrio Serbelloni, intended to start the approach towards the Boschpoort, whose fortifications they deemed the weakest. Besides, they were close to the Meuse, which would allow Mondragón to support the attack from the opposite bank. However, Berlaymont had a different opinion. He argued that the ground near the Boschpoort was low, and therefore exposed to floods in case of heavy rains, and also that it was very open, so the troops would be too exposed to the artillery fire from Maastricht's walls.[73][74] Farnese followed Berlaymont's advice and directed the approaches towards the Tongeren gate, chiefly to a tower located between that gate and the Pieterspoort, which had a ravelin in front of it. There, the roads were wider and deeper, and could be used as trenches. The work was assigned to the Spanish infantry, which opened trenches towards the tower and, by 20 March 1579, managed to reach the moat.[74]
Farnese ordered the ravelin to be carried by assault on 23 March 1579. The attack was entrusted to the Spanish foot companies under Francisco de Aguilar, Gaspar Ortiz and Sancho Ladrón.
Underground fighting
After the failed assault, Farnese ordered Berlaymont to batter the ravelin between the Tongeren gate and the Pieterspoort with eight cannons and two culverins, yet the damages were repaired during the night. Realizing the readiness of the defenders, he ordered additional attacks over other points of the walls. The tercio of Hernando de Toledo was entirely deployed in the approaches towards the aforesaid ravelin while
By 26 March 1579, the Spanish battery had been increased to 12 cannons in the plain before Maastricht and 2 culverins in a height nearby. More than 11,000 shots had been fired over the city since 20 March, the highest caliber being of 42 pounds.[78] That same day, two mines were detonated with no result other than further hindering the assault over the ravelin. Farnese even considered lifting the siege, but he finally persisted so as not to lose reputation. In the following days, fighting focused on the mines and counter-mines dug by the Spanish and Dutch sappers. One of the Spanish galleries was intercepted by a Dutch counter-mine. Having at first blocked the way with planks, then the Dutch sappers poured a large vat of boiling water over the hole, scalding the men who worked in the mine and forcing them to abandon it. Another gallery was intercepted, and this time Tapin ordered an amount of green wood to be set on fire at the entrance of the counter-mine to propel the smoke over the Spanish gallery by using bellows from the pipe organ of the Basilica of Saint Servatius.[79][80] Next day, 31 March, Farnese ordered a number of planks to be loopholed and sent a few dozen Spanish soldiers down the mines to claim them back. Firing from behind the planks and pushing the Dutch with pikes, the Spanish were able to re-occupy the galleries.[79][81]
The same day in the afternoon, aiming at taking revenge, the defenders launched a sortie over the Spanish trenches spanning from the Brussels gate to the St. Antonius gate. Tapin himself was in command. 600 foot soldiers sallied across the Kruispoort, and 60 horsemen across the Boschpoort.
Second assault
The defenders launched several additional sorties from 1 April to 3 April 1579 to hinder the Spanish siege works. In the largest one, 200 Spanish soldiers were killed, among them Captain Caravantes, who had been appointed less than two weeks before. Five sappers were captured and brought to the city. After the senior one was drowned in the Meuse when he refused to cooperate with the defenders, the remaining four agreed.
One of the mines was ignited that day below the ravelin of the Tongeren gate, whose tip was seriously damaged. Farnese then ordered Captain Antonio Trancoso to assault it in command of about 80 soldiers from his company. They scaled the ruined rampart, only to discover that the defenders had erected behind it a second parapet with a moat and a stockade.[89][90] After a fierce fight, the Spanish took control of the ravelin, though Trancoso was badly wounded and died next day. Tapin immediately ordered a counter-attack across the gate, which ultimately failed. Several prisoners were taken on both sides. One of them, Alessandro Cavalca, a gentleman from the entourage of Farnese, was drowned next day in the Meuse with a rock tied around his neck.[90][89]
On the morning of 9 April 1579, while men took their positions for the assault, the moat of the Boschpoort was emptied through breaches dug by the sappers while Mondragón subjected the gate to a heavy bombardment from the Wyck side with six cannons. Meanwhile, 20 cannons battered the walls in two points near the Tongeren gate and the Boschpoort.[87][91] The assault column directed to this gate consisted of the Tercio of Lope de Figueroa, the Tercio of Francisco de Valdés, six German foot companies from the Regiment of Altemps and five Walloon companies. The eight remaining companies under Altemps were left in reserve. The Tongeren gate was to be taken by the Tercio of Hernando de Toledo and six German companies of the Regiment of Frundsberg under Gilles de Berlaymont. A detachment from the Regiment of Fugger remained in reserve.[92][91] In Maastricht, Tapin led the defense of the Boschpoort, which he deemed the weakest point, and Manzano was in charge of the Tongeren gate.[92]
Before giving the order to assault Maastricht, Farnese send two officers to inspect the moat. One stated that it was empty enough, but the other argued the contrary. Farnese then wanted to make an inspection personally, but his war council dissuaded him, and he sent instead Guido di San Giorgio, who reported that the moat was shallow enough. Just before the assault, one mine was blown under a platform that the defenders had erected to defend the Tongeren gate. A second mine was ignited too, but it had been counter-mined by the Dutch from below and inflicted no damage.[93][94] The rubble and the earth from the walls, as well as the fascine thrown by the pioneers into the moat, eased the way for the Spanish soldiers.[95] The attack over the Boschpoort was headed by a volunteer forlorn hope formed mainly by young Italian noblemen led by Fabio Farnese, nephew to Alessandro, whom Count Mansfeld had assigned to the Tercio of Figueroa. The first two men to reach the top of the breach, Count Nofri and Antonio Simoneta, Lord of Torricella, were immediately dispatched by the defenders. Supported by Vasco de Zúñiga and the Marquis of Malaspina, Fabio Farnese managed to push the Dutch back, only to be killed shortly after together with nearly all his companions.[96]
The assault on the Tongeren gate was ill-coordinated, as the German and Walloon infantry, deployed on the right wing, attacked before the Tercio of Hernando de Toledo was ready. They were met by heavy musketry fire and decimated by the shots of cannons loaded with nails and chains.
Continuation of the siege
After the failed assault, Farnese summoned his war council to decide on the next movement. A new assault was deemed impossible due to the lack of gunpowder and lead, which had to be brought from Luxemburg. Therefore, it was decided to build a massive artillery platform facing the Brussels gate to easily batter the walls and, notably, to prevent the defenders from erecting additional fortifications before the gate.[105][106] That section of the wall was particularly strong, as a large bastion with loopholes and a deep moat had been built in front of the gate. Moreover, the bastion contained a second fortification, also surrounded by a moat and linked to the first and to the Brussels gate through narrow bridges over the moats. One large tower and four small ones defended the access to the city. On the other hand, the ground in front of it was high enough for an artillery platform capable of subjecting Maastricht to a bombardment from above to be placed.[107][108]
As the States-General were assembling forces to march in relief of Maastricht, the Spanish command also decided to built a
Preparations for the relief of Maastricht had accelerated after the arrival of Willem de Riddere to Antwerp in early April 1579. The States recruited 3,000 to 4,000
While the conversations took place, the artillery platform was quickly erected with
The situation inside the city was becoming increasingly gloomy. Without news from outside since 18 April 1579, Schwarzenberg ordered emergency coins valued at half, one and two stuivers to be minted in red copper on 28 April. This became the only money of legal course in Maastricht during the siege, and the prices of food, drinks and clothes were regulated by the military command.[120] Food restrictions were imposed on 4 May 1579 when Schwarzenberg ordered the two deans of the butchers' guild to inspect every house and stable in the city to prepare a list of the extant cattle. The burghers complained, as they had fed the garrison for longer than a year. Each soldier was paid four stuivers daily, the stonemason masters ten, and the poor people was fed at the expense of the town council, but the burghers were unable to exert their offices and received no compensation. Moreover, on 22 May, those who possessed wheat, rye or other grain in a quantity considered larger than sufficient to meet their basic needs, were ordered to sell it at the market at a fixed price.[121]
Capture and sack of the city
With supporting fire from the platform recently erected, the Spanish focused on capturing the bastion of the Brussels gate. The fire from above made the Dutch defense difficult, leading Tapin to order the fortification to be gradually demolished.
On 4 June, the Dutch sappers detonated two counter-mines below two Spanish mines, inflicting a number of casualties, including Captain Ortiz. Meanwhile, anticipating the loss of the Brussels gate, Tapin ordered a lunette to be built behind it. Thousands of civilians worked on the new fortification, which was quickly finished and furnished with eight cannons.[128] By then, the number of able soldiers in command of Schwarzenberg and Tapin had fallen to just 400.[116] According to a Dutch deserter, 1,000 defenders had been killed in the fighting.[129] Farnese decided then to drag siege artillery to the section of the walls under Spanish control to batter the new lunette. While supervising the operation, Berlaymont was killed.[130] His loss, according to Vázquez, was much deplored, 'for he was a brave gentleman, well-liked and much loved by all the nations'.[131]
The Spanish artillery fire forced the Dutch to abandon their remaining positions in the Brussels gate and retreat behind the lunette. This was subjected to a heavy bombardment, and Tapin was wounded. To encourage his men and keep morale high, he ordered to be taken to the front in a litter.[132] By 15 June, the number of Spanish cannons battering the lunette had increased to 14. Despite their high caliber of 40 pounds, they failed to breach the rampart.[133] Farnese then ordered his sappers to gradually demolish the flanks of the lunette. By 24 June 1579, the rampart was almost reduced to rubble, notably its left flank, towards the Basilica of Saint Servatius. That day, the Spanish infantry assaulted the lunette, but was repelled with heavy losses in spite that Tapin briefly lost consciousness, having been hit by a stone. As the rampart was deemed defenseless, Tapin ordered a new entrenchment to be dug behind it.[134] According to Famiano Strada 'there they [the Dutch soldiers and burghers] ate and slept, bringing the women their bread to them, remaining immobile on their positions'.[135]
After the failed assault, Farnese fell ill and had to remain in bed. On 26 June 1579, he promised the besieged that the city would be spared if they surrendered. However, his terms were rejected, as the defenders did not trust him.[136][137] Therefore, he determined that a final assault was to take place on 29 June, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul. The night before, while the deployment was being carried out, some Spanish and German soldiers unsuccessfully tried to storm the Dutch entrenchment, yet Farnese kept his orders. The Spanish infantry was placed on the right, and the German and Walloon soldiers on the left. During the night, several attacks were feigned in order to prevent the Dutch from resting.[137]
At dawn, Maastricht was finally stormed. The defenders were then asleep and, taken by surprise, could not contain the push. Assailed from all sides, they broke ranks and fled, being chased and hunted down by the Spanish, German and Walloon soldiers along the streets. Many tried to hide in cellars and basements, but the Catholic troops searched house by house and put them to the sword.
To put pressure over the last defenders, Mondragón launched an assault over Wyck, leading Tapin to realize that his position was hopeless. He request terms to Gonzaga and surrendered on condition to be spared with the surviving soldiers in exchange for a ransom. Schwarzenberg was slain during the battle, although it was rumored that he escaped in a boat disguised as a cook. By 1580, nevertheless, his states in Schinveld passed into the hands of a relative, dispelling any rumor about his survival.[143] Captain Manzano was found hiding in a loft by a soldier called Alonso de Solís, and taken to Farnese. The Spanish infantry asked for Manzano to be handed over to them, which Farnese did. When asked how he preferred to die, Manzano answered that like a soldier, so he was passed through the pikes as a punishment 'for those who to live with freedom abandon the Spanish obedience and go with the heretics'.[144] Most historians have promulgated the story that Tapin was spared and brought to Limbourg for medical treatment but exhaustion, coupled with his several wounds, took its toll, and he died some weeks later.[145] However, what seems more likely is Tapin was found wounded in a room. Before this hero, Ottavio Gonzaga and the Spanish soldiers who had accompanied him felt neither any respect nor any pity: blinded by anger, they put him to death without any form of trial. When the Prince of Parma learned of this fact, he was profoundly indignant and violently reproached Gonzaga for it. He would have liked to save the life of the valiant defender of Maastricht but, immobilized by illness in his quarters and not knowing any more of what was going on in the city but what they wanted him to know, he could not prevent his heroic adversary from falling victim to the vengeance of the Spaniards.[note 1]
Aftermath
The four months of siege and the sack of the city left Maastricht partially ruined. Contemporaneous Netherlandish authors such as Emanuel van Meteren and Pieter Bor noted that just 300 to 400 burghers remained after the capture of the city, which according to them had to be repopulated by people from Liège.[147] Strada wrote that 8,000 inhabitants, including 1,700 women, died during the siege, while the Mémoires anonymes sur les troubles des Pays-bas reduces the figure to 4,000 dead.[148] The number of deaths in the assault and sack was set by Christophe d'Assonville, member of the Privy Council, at 500 or 600, a number which Farnese rose to 900 to 1,000, and Protestant authors to 2,100 to 2,500.[149] In 1865, a study by the Dutch historian Jozef Habets, who researched the baptismal records of the city's four parishes in the ten years after the siege, denied that Maastricht had been depopulated as a consequence of the city's capture, but that it quickly recovered its former prosperity after 1579. Habets argued that, of the 1,362 names listed in the 1581-1591 period, just four are of Spanish background and 61 of Walloon or French origins, the remaining being of Lower Dutch extraction.[150] Later, in 1876, A. F. Haakman further dispelled the mass depopulation when concluded that in 1582 about 5,880 people lived in two of the four Maastrich parishes, for a total estimated population of more than 13,000 people. Besides the casualties during the siege, Haakman attributes the decreasement in population to the diseases and to the flight of many of the city's wealthiest inhabitants. He also noted that the schepen, the guild masters and the administrators of the charities were essentially the same before and after the siege, and that the bakers, brewers, wine merchants and butchers were allowed to continue their jobs unmolested.[151]
The Spanish casualties were high. According to Alonso Vázquez, more than 1,500 Spanish soldiers died in the combats, including 23 captains and three sergeant majors.
Military and political developments
While the siege of Maastricht and the Cologne peace talks were being undertaken, Farnese was also negotiating with the Walloon States of Artois, Hainaut and the Walloon Flanders, which agreed to submit to Philip II by the
Legacy
As a major victory for Philip II, the Siege of Maastricht was depicted in paintings, engravings and plays. The siege features prominently in two series of paintings about battles and sieges of the Eighty Years' War commissioned in the late 1590s by
The first artworks to depict the siege were two engravings by Frans Hogenberg which were published shortly thereafter. One focuses on the siege, and the other portrays the sack of the city, chiefly the escape of the townsfolk across the bridge over the Meuse and the Spanish violence. Hogenberg, a Protestant based in Cologne, depicted many sacks by the Army of Flanders, but none by the Dutch rebels.
A series of paintings depicting the campaigns of Alexander Farnese, based on Hooghe's engravings for De Bello Belgico, was created in the early 18th century by the
Notes
- ^ Vazquez, Campana, Strada, Motley, and Joly assert that Tapijn was made prisoner and led before the Prince of Parma, who granted him the life saved. He would soon have died in the service of the Emperor. We think we have to challenge their testimony. They are not eyewitnesses or immediate witnesses, while Paolo Rinaldi, the author of the unpublished manuscript Liber Relationum, is. He kept himself near the ill Farnese, in the tent where the latter was lying. However, his testimony is categorical: «Che venendo [Tapijn] in mano d’Ottavio Gonzaga et de Spagnoli, lo fecero morire malamente senza ordine et saputa di Parma, che cosi ho detto all’ hora stava infermo, la qual cosa come seppe se ne risenti gagliardamente con Ottavio Gonzaga di questo…». Strada and Campana say that Farnese, after having saved Tapijn, had him brought to and shut up in Limbourg Castle. Isn't there contradiction here with the history of La Noue, for whom Tapijn was the lieutenant? This may be the origin of the legend.[146]
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4093-8664-3.
- ^ ISBN 90-5730-399-X
- ^ Darby 2001, p. 17.
- ^ Darby 2001, p. 18.
- ^ Tracy 2008, pp. 83–84.
- ^ Arnade 2018, p. 246.
- ^ Darby 2001, p. 19.
- ^ Parker 1977, p. 181.
- ^ Parker 1977, p. 182.
- ^ Darby 2001, p. 20.
- ^ Parker 1977, p. 186.
- ^ Marnef 2001, p. 99.
- ^ Marnef 2001, p. 91.
- ^ Parker 1977, p. 187.
- ^ Parker 1977, p. 188.
- ^ Parker 1977, p. 189.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020a, v. I pp. 223–233.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 22–23.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020a, v. I pp. 234–250.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 24.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020a, v. I pp. 250–253.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 25.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020a, v. I pp. 254–260.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 27.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 29.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020a, v. I p. 263.
- ^ Vázquez 1879, p. 130.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020a, v. I pp. 272–277.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 32–33.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020a, v. I pp. 293–297.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 34.
- ^ Vázquez 1879, p. 143.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020a, v. I p. 301.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 35.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 71–74.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 82.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 36.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 82–83.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 37.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 40.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 83–85.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 42.
- ^ Parker 1977, p. 190.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 124.
- ^ a b Parker 1977, p. 191.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 85–87.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 44.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 87–91.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 45.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 46–47.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 91–93.
- ^ a b Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 153.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 50.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 50–51.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 51.
- ^ Verbelen 2009, p. 31.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 150.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 51–52.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 150–151.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 52.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 56.
- ^ a b Strada 1681, p. 58.
- ^ a b c Vázquez 1879, p. 187.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 152.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 62.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 58–59.
- ^ a b c Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 154.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 59.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 154–155.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 60.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 155–156.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 63.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 157–158.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 64.
- ^ a b Vázquez 1879, p. 188.
- ^ a b c Thomassen 1890, p. 65.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 67.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 68.
- ^ a b Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 159.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 69.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 69–70.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 156–157.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 70.
- ^ Vázquez 1879, p. 195.
- ^ a b Strada 1681, p. 61.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 72.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 74.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 161–162.
- ^ a b Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 160.
- ^ a b Strada 1681, p. 66.
- ^ a b Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 162.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 75.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 163.
- ^ Strada 1681, p. 73.
- ^ Strada 1681, pp. 68–69.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 76.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 164–166.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 77.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 166.
- ^ Strada 1681, p. 72.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 164–165.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 78.
- ^ Vázquez 1879, p. 203.
- ^ Strada 1681, pp. 76–77.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 82.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 175.
- ^ a b c Thomassen 1890, p. 83.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 175–176.
- ^ Strada 1681, pp. 78–79.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 172–173.
- ^ a b Meteren 1618, p. 172.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 173.
- ^ Strada 1681, p. 79.
- ^ a b Tracy 2008, p. 142.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 174.
- ^ a b Meteren 1618, p. 173.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 174–175.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 84.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 176.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 85.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 86–87.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 87.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 176–177.
- ^ Strada 1681, pp. 109–110.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 177.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 88.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 177–178.
- ^ Strada 1681, p. 111.
- ^ Strada 1681, p. 110.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 180.
- ^ Vázquez 1879, p. 211.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 178–179.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 91.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 181–182.
- ^ Strada 1681, p. 114.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 181.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 94.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 95.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 183–184.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 96.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 97.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 184–186.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 97–98.
- ^ Vázquez 1879, pp. 216–217.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 98.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 186–187, note 149.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 99–100.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, pp. 101–102.
- ^ Verbelen 2009, p. 32.
- ^ Habets 1865, pp. 70–72.
- ^ Haakman 1876, pp. 394–411.
- ^ Vázquez 1879, p. 217.
- ^ Strada 1681, p. 120.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 189.
- ^ Strada 1681, p. 121.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 189–190.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 193–194.
- ^ Thomassen 1890, p. 107.
- ^ Vázquez 1879, p. 222.
- ^ a b Thomassen 1890, p. 108.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II p. 206.
- ^ Marek y Villarino de Brugge 2020b, v. II pp. 223–224.
- ^ Tracy 2008, p. 157.
- ^ Stensland 2012, p. 98.
- ^ Tracy 2008, p. 165.
- ^ Limm 1989, p. 52.
- ^ Stensland 2012, p. 102.
- ^ Limm 1989, pp. 53–54.
- ^ a b García-Frías Checa 2006, p. 154.
- ^ García-Frías Checa 2006, p. 157.
- ^ García-Frías Checa 2006, pp. 155–156.
- ^ Voges 2021, p. 311.
- ^ Voges 2021, p. 315.
- ^ Duijnen 2020, p. 71.
- ^ Duijnen 2020, p. 81.
- ^ Duijnen 2020, p. 108.
- ^ Panbehchi 2014, p. 19.
- ^ Panbehchi 2014, pp. 127–130.
- ^ Panbehchi 2014, p. 115.
- ^ Panbehchi 2014, pp. 32–36.
References
- Arnade, Peter (2018). Beggars, Iconoclasts, and Civic Patriots: The Political Culture of the Dutch Revolt. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9781501726712.
- Darby, Graham (2001). "Narrative of events". In Darby, Graham (ed.). The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt. Routledge. pp. 8–28. ISBN 9780415253796.
- Duijnen, M. F. van (2020). A Violent Imagination: Printed Images of Violence in the Dutch Republic, 1650–1700 (PhD). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
- García-Frías Checa, Carmen (2006). "Las series de batallas del Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial. Frescos y pinturas". In García García, Bernardo José (ed.). La imagen de la guerra en el arte de los antiguos Países Bajos. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Fundación Carlos de Amberes. pp. 135–170. ISBN 9788474918014.
- Habets, Jozef (1865). "Opkomst en voortgang der stadt Maastricht". Publications de la Société d'archéologie dans le Duché de Limbourg (in Dutch). 2: 22–98.
- Haakman, A. F. (1876). "Het beleg en de zoogenaamde verwoesting van Maastricht in 1579". Publications de la Société historique et archéologique dans le Duché de Limbourg (in Dutch). 13: 311–428.
- Limm, Peter (1989). The Dutch Revolt, 1559–1648. Longman. ISBN 9780582355941.
- Marek y Villarino de Brugge, André (2020a). Alessandro Farnese: Prince of Parma: Governor-General of the Netherlands (1545–1592): v. I. Los Angeles: MJV Enterprises ltd. inc. ISBN 979-8687255998.
- Marek y Villarino de Brugge, André (2020b). Alessandro Farnese: Prince of Parma: Governor-General of the Netherlands (1545–1592): v. II. Los Angeles: MJV Enterprises, ltd., inc. ISBN 979-8687563130.
- Marnef, Guido (2001). "The towns and the revolt". In Darby, Graham (ed.). The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt. Routledge. pp. 84–106. ISBN 9780415253796.
- Meteren, Emanuel van (1618). L'Histoire Des Pays-Bas d'Emanuel de Meteren (in French). Hillebrand Jacobsz Wou.
- Panbehchi, Michael J. (2014). The Triumphs of Alexander Farnese: A Contextual Analysis of the Series of Paintings in Santiago, Chile (PhD). Virginia Commonwealth University.
- Parker, Geoffrey (1977). The Dutch Revolt. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801411366.
- Stensland, Monica (2012). Habsburg Communication in the Dutch Revolt. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 9789089644138.
- Strada, Famiano (1681). Segunda Decada de las Guerras de Flandes, desde el principio del Govierno de Alexandro Farnese, Tercero Duque de Parma y Placencia (in Spanish). s. n.
- Thomassen, M. H. J. P. (1890). Krijgsbedrijven van Alexander Farnese in Limburg en aangrenzende gewesten, 1578–1579 (in Dutch). Vol. I. Stoomdrukkerij van "Le Courrier de la Meuse".
- Tracy, James D. (2008). The Founding of the Dutch Republic. War, Finance, and Politics in Holland, 1572–1588. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199209118.
- Vázquez, Alonso (1879). Los Sucesos de Flandes y Francia del tiempo de Alejandro Farnese (in Spanish). Vol. I. Miguel Ginesta.
- Verbelen, Charis (2009). Het beeld van Alexander Farnese in pamfletten. Studie met de focus op enkele prominente gebeurtenissen tijdens zijn gouverneurschap 1578–1592 (Master's thesis) (in Dutch). KU Leuven.
- Voges, Ramon (2021). "Pictures and Power: The Visual Prints of Frans Hogenberg". In Lamal, Nina; Cumbie, Jamie; Helmers, Helmer J. (eds.). Print and Power in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800). Brill. pp. 300–315. ISBN 9789004448896.